Sufficiency of reasons in civil context

Sufficiency of reasons in the criminal context is an issue dealt with frequently by Canadian appeal courts.  Sufficiency in the civil context is far less often an issue.  That said, today's Ontario Court of Appeal decision in King's Bay Development Corp. v. Cornerstone Custom Homes Ltd., 2009 ONCA 611  makes clear that the same rules apply in both the civil and criminal context when considering sufficiency of reasons.  There must be an understandable rationale for the decision.  The Court holds:

 

 

[21]          … King's Bay submits that the trial judge's reasons are sufficient and that the record supports his findings.  It relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. M. (R.E.), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, where the court pointed out that a trial judge's reasons are sufficient if they show why the judge arrived at the decision; it is not necessary for the reasons to demonstrate how the judge reached the decision.  But, as McLachlin C.J.C. said in R. v. M. (R.E.) at para. 20, "the trial judge need not expound on evidence which is uncontroversial, or detail his or her findings on each piece of evidence or controverted fact, so long as the findings linking the evidence to the verdict can be logically discerned" [emphasis added].  That was not done in this case.  The reasons in this case contain bare conclusions tainted by a misapprehension of the parties' positions and a misunderstanding of the impact of Lack J.'s order.  To the extent the reasons show why the trial judge arrived at his conclusions, the reasons are erroneous.